BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

1,628 results for “depreciation”+ Section 11(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,634Delhi4,360Bangalore1,731Chennai1,628Kolkata980Ahmedabad603Hyderabad362Jaipur331Pune297Karnataka263Chandigarh183Raipur165Indore139Cochin125Amritsar100Visakhapatnam88SC80Lucknow78Surat70Telangana58Rajkot53Jodhpur52Ranchi50Cuttack39Nagpur35Guwahati29Kerala20Calcutta17Panaji16Patna16Allahabad10Dehradun10Agra9Orissa7Punjab & Haryana7Rajasthan6Varanasi6Jabalpur4Gauhati2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)76Disallowance65Section 14A51Addition to Income45Depreciation40Section 153A35Section 26334Section 115J32Deduction31Section 11

M.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, ITO, CHENNAI vs. GREENPEACE ENVIRONMENT TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 406/CHNY/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 406/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Greenpeace Environment Trust, Exemptions, Ward-1, Vs. New No.49, Old No.23, Chennai. Ellaiamman Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [Pan:Aaatg-3538-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Kumar Chandan, Jcit. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(c)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

depreciation of Rs.49,233/-. Therefore, the disallowances made by the AO in the assessment order are not justified. Further I find that the AO has not demonstrated that there is violation of provisions of section 13(3)(c) & (e) and hence the denial of exemption u/s 11

Showing 1–20 of 1,628 · Page 1 of 82

...
20
Section 14820
Section 14718

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2557/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016 & C.O. Nos.158 & 159/Mds/2016 (In Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CITFor Respondent: Shri V. Ravichandran, CA
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

3) of the Act. Moreover, the assessee will not be eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act if it is carrying on any business activity. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee is not eligible for depreciation

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2556/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016 & C.O. Nos.158 & 159/Mds/2016 (In Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CITFor Respondent: Shri V. Ravichandran, CA
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

3) of the Act. Moreover, the assessee will not be eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act if it is carrying on any business activity. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee is not eligible for depreciation

THE INDIAN CULTURAL RESEARCH TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3018/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

depreciation to be allowed on assets so purchased by the trust having 12A registration. 8.4 In the case of India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(E) 371 ITR 333 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the expression ‘charitable purpose’ as defined in section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms

THE INDIAN CULTURAL RESEARCH TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3020/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

depreciation to be allowed on assets so purchased by the trust having 12A registration. 8.4 In the case of India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(E) 371 ITR 333 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the expression ‘charitable purpose’ as defined in section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms

ITO, CHENNAI vs. M/S. INDIAN CULTURAL RESEARCH TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 2978/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

depreciation to be allowed on assets so purchased by the trust having 12A registration. 8.4 In the case of India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(E) 371 ITR 333 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the expression ‘charitable purpose’ as defined in section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms

ITO, CHENNAI vs. M/S. INDIAN CULTURAL RESEARCH TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 2977/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

depreciation to be allowed on assets so purchased by the trust having 12A registration. 8.4 In the case of India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(E) 371 ITR 333 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the expression ‘charitable purpose’ as defined in section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms

THE INDIAN CULTURAL RESEARCH TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3019/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

depreciation to be allowed on assets so purchased by the trust having 12A registration. 8.4 In the case of India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(E) 371 ITR 333 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the expression ‘charitable purpose’ as defined in section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms

ITO, CHENNAI vs. M/S. INDIAN CULTURAL RESEARCH TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 2976/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

depreciation to be allowed on assets so purchased by the trust having 12A registration. 8.4 In the case of India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(E) 371 ITR 333 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the expression ‘charitable purpose’ as defined in section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms

ITO, CHENNAI vs. THE INDIAN CULTURAL RESEARCH TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 586/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

depreciation to be allowed on assets so purchased by the trust having 12A registration. 8.4 In the case of India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(E) 371 ITR 333 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that the expression ‘charitable purpose’ as defined in section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms

M/S J SIKILE FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION-III, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 83/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.83/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. M/S.J Sikile Foundation, The Dcit, Plot No.1025, Street No.44, Exemption-Iii, Tvs Colony, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai. Chennai-600 101. [Pan: Aaats 1630 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.S.Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 234BSection 234D

11,41,856 outstanding of Rs.95,15,469/-@12% 1,80,21,801 Less: Depreciation relating 2,89,419 to assets acquired during the year Assessed income 1,77,32,382 Tax thereon @30% 53,19,715 Education Cess 1,59,591 Total tax 54,79,306 Add: Interest u/s. 234B 19,61,352 Add: Interest u/s 234D 3

TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1536/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 12A

11. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. Let’s first take assessment 12 I.T.A. Nos.1535 to 1537/Mds/14 year 2008-09. The assessee is claiming depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. For the purpose of convenience, we are reproducing Section 32 hereunder:- “32 (1) In respect of depreciation

TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1535/CHNY/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 12A

11. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. Let’s first take assessment 12 I.T.A. Nos.1535 to 1537/Mds/14 year 2008-09. The assessee is claiming depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. For the purpose of convenience, we are reproducing Section 32 hereunder:- “32 (1) In respect of depreciation

TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1537/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 12A

11. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. Let’s first take assessment 12 I.T.A. Nos.1535 to 1537/Mds/14 year 2008-09. The assessee is claiming depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. For the purpose of convenience, we are reproducing Section 32 hereunder:- “32 (1) In respect of depreciation

DDIT, CHENNAI vs. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & ADVANCED STUDIES,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross- objection of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1759/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1759/Mds/2013 & C.O. No.15/Mds/2014 (In I.T.A. No.1759/Mds/2013) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Bharath, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

11. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. Let’s first take assessment year 2008-09. The assessee is claiming depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. For the purpose of convenience, we are reproducing Section 32 hereunder:- “32 (1) In respect of depreciation of-- (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture

S. ARAVIND,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

ITA 2584/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

11. For the relevant AY 2012 For the relevant AY 2012-13, the assessee is noted to have filed 13, the assessee is noted to have filed his return of income on 16.10.2013. Having regard to the time limit set out in income on 16.10.2013. Having regard to the time limit set out in income on 16.10.2013. Having regard

M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

ITA 2586/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

11. For the relevant AY 2012 For the relevant AY 2012-13, the assessee is noted to have filed 13, the assessee is noted to have filed his return of income on 16.10.2013. Having regard to the time limit set out in income on 16.10.2013. Having regard to the time limit set out in income on 16.10.2013. Having regard

P. KARUNANITHI,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

ITA 2685/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

11. For the relevant AY 2012 For the relevant AY 2012-13, the assessee is noted to have filed 13, the assessee is noted to have filed his return of income on 16.10.2013. Having regard to the time limit set out in income on 16.10.2013. Having regard to the time limit set out in income on 16.10.2013. Having regard

K. KATHIRVEL,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

ITA 2686/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

11. For the relevant AY 2012 For the relevant AY 2012-13, the assessee is noted to have filed 13, the assessee is noted to have filed his return of income on 16.10.2013. Having regard to the time limit set out in income on 16.10.2013. Having regard to the time limit set out in income on 16.10.2013. Having regard

M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

ITA 2587/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

11. For the relevant AY 2012 For the relevant AY 2012-13, the assessee is noted to have filed 13, the assessee is noted to have filed his return of income on 16.10.2013. Having regard to the time limit set out in income on 16.10.2013. Having regard to the time limit set out in income on 16.10.2013. Having regard